As we can see from reviewing the case law, the definition of natural born citizen remains undefined by the courts and debatable within the public. From a practical point of view, the definition really comes down to exactly what has already been discussed: is it enough to simply be born here, or does it also require that both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, jus sanguinis (right of blood)?

One of the important issues that clouds this debate is that many people confuse the term citizen and the term natural born citizen. In the court cases we have reviewed so far, no one was conferring natural born citizen on any of the parties to the cases including those citizens described in the 14th Amendment. This book is concerned with this special type of citizenship, i.e., natural born citizenship. The only time natural born citizenship in the United States is required is to hold the Offices of President and Vice-President of the United States. You do not need to be a natural born citizen to be a Senator, nor to be a Representative in the House. You don’t have to be a natural born citizen to be Governor of a state, Mayor, or a City Council person. You do not need to be a natural born citizen to enjoy any of the rights guaranteed to you in the first 10 Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Do not these facts on their very face seem to imply or at least lead to the argument that there is something uniquely special about natural born citizenship? If so, what would that uniqueness be? Is it unreasonable to think that the uniqueness might just in fact be as de Vattel wrote: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens [?]” But what is most important is what our U.S. Constitution and how our current law can guide us in ascertaining a decision. As the Chief Justice wrote in the Minor v. Happersett decision, “[t]he Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”[i] Remember, the opinion written in the Minor v. Happersett case was written after the 14th Amendment was ratified and became a part of the Constitution, so when the opinion in the case makes the above statement, the 14th Amendment is included in that statement meaning the 14th Amendment does not define natural born citizen either.

We have already pointed out that the founding fathers studied de Vattel to the extent that Benjamin Franklin admitted to The Law of Nations use in the Continental Congress. As a result, the founders would have been aware of his definition of natural born citizen at the time of their writing of the Constitution. We have looked at the Nationality Act of 1790. We have reviewed the 14th Amendment and the cases of Minor v. Happersett as well as U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. We have not, however, in detail looked at the provision in the 14th Amendment that states “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As a reminder, the 14th Amendment begins:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.[ii]

There is no doubt that when Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, he would have been subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States meaning the laws of the United States and the laws in the State of Hawaii, but would he also be politically subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or did he also hold political jurisdiction via the British Naturalization Act of 1948 to the country of England? The question we have been debating here is would he have qualified as a natural born citizen? Is a British citizen at birth a natural born U.S. citizen?

During the Presidential Campaign of 2008, Barack Obama’s campaign put up a website called Fight the Smears (www.fightthesmears.com) in order to debunk any rumors that surfaced about him during the campaign. One of the rumors surfacing in June of 2008 questioned whether or not Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. In response to this smear, Barack Obama’s website posted a page on their website debunking this rumor, by showing a digital copy of Barack Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii. The website page included an article written by the Washington Post as well as a website post from FactCheck.org where the first (Washington Post) attempted to confirm that he was born in Hawaii while the latter (FactCheck.org) addressed his citizenship. The page on the Fight the Smears website[iii] debunking the Hawaiian birth certificate smear is depicted below:

At the top of the webpage is the website’s official statement on the matter, and it reads in its entirety as follows:

Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper – they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.

The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

Next time someone talks about Barack’s birth certificate, make sure they see this page.[iv]

The next item on this page of the website was the digital copy of his Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii. The next item was an extract from The Washington Post article (with a link to the article) stating:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”

In the official statement on the Fight the Smears website, Barack Obama is said to be a “native born citizen.” The Washington Post extract on the website makes no mention of citizenship. And the FactCheck.org statement on the website states:

Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.[vii]

At the time the FactCheck.org statement was posted on the Fight the Smears website, sometime in late August or early September of 2008, some people were astounded to see this admission. These folks made the argument that the website posting proved that Barack Obama had at a minimum held dual citizenship at the time of his birth, and that as a British subject at birth he could not possibly be a natural born citizen. It did not matter to them that the FactCheck.org statement went on to say that Barack Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired on August 4, 1982. For them, this was enough to prove that Barack Obama was not in fact and by his own admission a natural born citizen. For if his citizenship was governed by an Act of the British Government then he must be subject to their political jurisdiction in some manner. The logical question being, can a person who possesses dual citizenship at birth be a natural born citizen? This of course is the seminal question of our discussion. Barack Obama’s Fight the Smears website refers to him as a native born citizen. Is there in fact a difference between native born and natural born citizens?

Prima facie evidence suggests when we look at the definitions of native born versus natural born we see no differentiation in the definitions. Dictionary.com defines native born as: “born in the place or country indicated,” (definition having its origins from 1490 to 1500) and defines natural born as “a native born” (definition has its origin from 1575 to -85).[viii] According to Dictionary.com the term native born has its origins prior to the term natural born which logically allows for the later to derive its definition from the former. As a result, one can conclude that according to Dictionary.com, the case is closed, natural born equals native born. In fact, in de Vattel’s definition of natural born he somewhat alluded to the terms as equals when he stated: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” If natives is equal to native born then de Vattel would also be stating that they are equal. It is not clear, however, if de Vattel is in fact using the term natives in place of native born. Interestingly, no other online dictionary defines natural born, and my Second College Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary (albeit is a bit dated) also does not define the term natural born while it does provide the same definition for native born as dictionary.com. Can we conclude that these other dictionaries do not define the term natural born citizen because we do not possess a definition as has been argued to this point in the book?

To this point, in the various chapters of the book, we have discussed different types of citizenship including: natural born citizens, native born citizens, U.S. citizens and naturalized citizens. Although our endeavor is to define the term natural born citizen, it might be helpful to find a finite definition for each of these terms. Our friend, M Publius Goat at the Country First website has put together a citizenship chart which is depicted as follows:

Reprinted with Permission

The chart is a little bit hard to read in our reproduced copy of it, but if you click on the chart it will take you to a larger version of the chart. In order to assist with what is depicted above, here is the breakdown of citizenship:

Citizen of the U.S. = born to at least (1) U.S. citizen parent, or born in the U.S.A., or naturalized as a U.S. citizen

Born Citizen of the U.S. = born in the U.S.

Naturalized Citizen = not born in the U.S. and citizenship rights gained by the process governed by federal statute.

Natural Born Citizen = Both parents U.S. citizens (of any type above) and born in the U.S.A.

I highly recommend that you click on the chart and see the logical definitions and relationships between the types of citizens.

The chart provided makes a lot of sense and logically it appears to give us a clear understanding of the various types of citizenship. Unlike the proponents of Barack Obama’s natural born citizenship status, I am not just going to point to this chart and claim our work is done, that we now have a definitive answer as to all of our natural born citizenship questions. This is an excellent start, and lays out citizenship logically for us, but we still have the duty to confirm the chart in accordance with our Constitution and subsequent Amendments and Federal Statutes. The definition of natural born citizen is becoming much clearer to us as we proceed through these discussions, but we are not arrogant enough to think that we can unequivocally define that which has not been defined within our Constitutional and legal system. It should be noted that it is not that those whom are opponents to Barack Obama’s natural born citizenship status are saying Barack Obama is definitely not a natural born citizen even though they are fairly sure he is not, they are simply saying at the very least that they have no definitive way of knowing for sure if he is. As a result, the matter must be decided to protect our nation ensuring adherence to its Constitution. If a person whom is not a natural born citizen is allowed to occupy the Office of the President of the United States in usurpation, then there is no other law contained within the Constitution that must also be abided. Should this occur, then the result is anarchy and our nation no longer exists as a Constitutional Republic bound by the rule of law. Furthermore, there would be nothing to prevent someone from becoming President of the United States whom is not a natural born citizen and has ill intentions whom would do irreparable harm to our nation as a result of becoming President.

Any reproduction of the content in this blog post must credit the author: KJ Kaufman (aka: curi0us0nefromthe60s) and must reference a link to this blog site https://hesnotmypresident.wordpress.com or link to the specific blog post cited. You are free to distribute this content in order to educate the populous as long as you adhere to the aforementioned conditions. Your cooperation in citing this source when reproducing, referencing or redistributing the content contained herein is greatly appreciated.

I just found your website. I have been researching, blogging, and writing on this issue for over a year. Here is one repository of some of my writings on this subject:http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=105
I will bookmark your site and stop by from time to time and follow along as your work in process progresses.

By the way, have you read any of the writings on the subject of the natural born citizen legal term of art and clause of our Constitution by Attorney Mario Apuzzo some of which have been published in the Washington Times National Weekly edition over the last three months? If not, you may wish to. Here is his blog:http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

How are we going to get five votes in a supreme court case where the definition of nbc wasn’t in the constitution and the judges have to look at outside documents to come to a conclusion? It’ll be like watching people decide about hanging chads. And, just about the entire media will go with the living constitution angle and declare that “there is a consensus among legal analysts”, “the debate is over”, and any conclusion different from theirs is “not legitimate”, but rather “politically motivated” and that “people will quite rightly be outraged”. It’s not hard at all to see that scenario play out. [Editor: this of course could happen, but what would be important is that Supreme Court received a case that followed procedure that they could rule on. Regardless of how they rule, if the process was followed, I would happily accept their ruling regardless of whether or not I agreed with it. My only intent in writing this book and having a national dialogue on this subject has been to ensure that the constitution is being followed. My goal has never been to have Barack Obama removed from office. If the U.S. Supreme Court decided he wasn’t a natural born citizen of course I would accept that decision as well, but it is not my goal. Finally, as Leo Donofrio believes, I also believe this case will never make it to the Supreme Court and that is truly the problem. We now live under a Constitution that for all intents and purposes is dead, and no matter what side of the aisle you stand on or what side of the political spectrum you reside in if your Constitution is no longer valid then you have very little chance of enjoying liberty and freedom in the future.]

I noticed on a previous post that you thought Ms. Sotomayor would pleasantly surprise us in the first year, too. If this case should come before her, I don’t know how we could expect her fifth vote on this matter. She looks a lot like Chester Obama’s judge Gray. [Editor: when I wrote my opinion on Sotomayor this is what I took into consideration. Her rulings through a long judicial career have been moderate to slightly left, but certainly within the mainstream. When I looked at candidate Obama, based on his record in the Illinois State Legislature and the U.S. Senate, he was clearly a far left liberal. I think Barack Obama believes Sotomayor is far more liberal than she really is. Of course, I could be very wrong, but this is the opinion I hold today. If this case comes before the Supreme Court which I assume will never happen, I think Ms. Sotomayor would have to recuse herself from hearing the case which would of course present another problem where the Justices could be split 4-4.]

As a side note, if Obama were declared ineligible by the court, would that mean that Justice Sotomayor would also have to vacate her seat? Is that what she would be voting upon as well? [Editor: if Obama was declared a Usurper (which again, I believe is never going to happen) everything he has done as President would be null and void which includes his appointment of Justice Sotomayor. In later chapters in the book, I discuss the negligence by the candidates, the Congress, the media and the courts that have led us to this consitutional crisis which we never should have been in.]

Do we live in interesting times? 🙂 [Editor: unfortunately we do, and one should never desire or wish to live in interesting times.]

Came here from Leo’s site. Appreciate your Web site and presentation of the various questions involved in presidential eligibility (especially since Leo said his work at NaturalBornCitizen is almost done). Perhaps the best strategy is to emphasize the need for judicial interpretation of the natural born citizen. Too many people view specifically questioning Obama’s eligibility as the effort of a sore loser, or worse.

At the time of the Constitution, if the father was a citizen, then the spouse automatically became a citizen when she married the man. That was citizenship by derivation. That was also understood under the laws of nations at that time which were based on the laws of nature, or “natural law”. Thus except for the Jewish religious laws in general the citizenship of the father was key as to citizenship of the community and that was emphasized in Vattel’s writings. For Vattel knew that if the father was a citizen that upon marriage the wife instantly became naturalized as a citizen of the husband’s country by that marriage. Thus when Vattel wrote that the child follows the condition of the father, he understood that the law of nations and nature understood that the spouse of the father would automatically be a citizen of the country when the man married to the woman.

To achieve the intent of the natural born citizenship term of art codified in Vattel’s 1758 legal treatise, which is a child born with singular allegiance to one and only one country and have undivided loyalty and allegiance at birth, the only way that can be achieved is for the child to be born in the country to two citizens of the country, which is why Vattel defined natural born citizenship that way. And the founders and framers read Vattel. Franklin received three copies in 1775 of the new edition published in the original French in that year from the editor Dumas for use by the Continental Congress. The law of nature on which the law of nations was based from the beginning man’s recorded history is quite clear on the meaning of natural born citizen. If one is born in the country to two citizens of the country, then “naturally” you are a citizen of that country and only that country and know law of man is required to clarify it.

See this excellent Euler Diagram and article to explain with logic what the law of nature conveys at birth and which no law can retroactively confer or change.

Excellent. Looks good. I am pleased to be a contributor to your book. If you wish to use any of my other writings or research about Natural Born Citizen in my postings, feel free do so following the same approach you did with the usage of the chart. See the URL link below my signature.

Once your book is done, I look forward to you getting a publisher and making it available in print form. Having things in paper printed form is getting to be more and more important, not less and less as some have predicted paper publishing would become, since we have seen what the Obama campaign and their minions and Obot operatives can do when it comes to scrubbing the net and even the way back archives … and making things disappear. Obama is truly becoming the invisible man on the internet as to anything factual about his early life.

The logic that Obama’s is not a natural born citizen because of his birth being determined by British Nationality of 1948 brings up some interesting questions. The founding fathers too were dual citizens ie British and US (after when the US became the US). So would that have made them ineligible to become POTUS given their dual allegiance (I haven’t heard of them denouncing their British citizenship – since they actually did not need to). Also, were their children also British citizens, since their parents had British citizenship? The founding fathers were not dual citizens at birth, they were British subjects only! The United States did not exist as a soveriegn country, therefore, at their birth they could not become citizens or natural born citizens of a sovereign country that did not exist. Once the Revolution was won, and the U.S. became a sovereign nation, they became citizens of the U.S. This is why the founding fathers wrote the “grandfather” clause into the Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution which stated that those who were citizens of the U.S. at the time of the writing of the Constitution could also be Presidents. Anyone born after the writing of the U.S. constitution could not simply be citizens of the U.S. but had to be natural born citizens to be eligible to be President.

I know this might seem like flawed logic, but so does the claim that the natural-born status of a sovereign state being governed by that of a foreign entity! I could be wrong, but we have to apply the law for all (from the founding fathers generation to the present day) if this is indeed the case! This would mean that none of the 43 POTUS’s have been able to satisfy the natural-born part! All of the 43 former Presidents have met either the grandfather clause or Vattel’s definiton of natural born citizen with the one exception of Chester Arthur. For a thorough understanding of the Chester Arthur issue with natural born citizen, you need to read Leo Donofrio’s blog (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com) entries on Chester Arthur.

The difference between a British subject and British citizen as per law at the time might be subject to interpretation. However a British subject is still a British subject ie subject to laws of the British thus having foreign allegiance, and so were their children – does this give British law a hand in determining the status of a US naturalized citizen? What was the difference between a subject and a citizen at the time? [Editor: I do not know if the terms were used interchangeable at the time. It is my understanding that the term subject was the term used because they were subjects of the King of England.

Did British law continue to govern/affect subjects and subject’s children no matter where they were born? In other words when does a subject stop being a subject and also capable of giving the derivative status to their children? It just seems far fetched that a foreign country can override the laws of a sovereign land! [Editor: This is where I think you are mistaken in your comprehension of their status. Up until the Revolution, the United States did not exist as the United States. It was part of the British empire and had no sovereignty whatsoever as an independent nation. The victory in the Revolutionary War is what gave America its sovereignty and finalized the split from Great Britain. Once we became a sovereign nation, we could then set up our own sovereignty and citizenship laws. I am not a lawyer, nor a legal scholar, but to further flesh out citizenship at the time you would need to look at the Treaty of Paris which ended the Revolutionary War (you can find it here: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/paris/text.html), and the naturalization laws of the United States which is discussed in Chapter 3 of this book.

Also according to US law, isn’t one either a natural-born citizen or naturalized citizen? These of course are not well defined in the constitution but by US Code Title 8, 1401, Subchapter III. Is this code unconstitutional, insufficient or subject to wrong interpretation based on the 14th amendment?[Editor: In this same chapter of the book, chapter 7, at least 4 types of citizenship are discussed. Please re-read the chapter to see the various types of citizenship discussed.

And just a minor correction: we have 42 former presidents, but 43 presidents in total (counting Obama that is). I believe one president did 2 non-consecutive terms.

What I meant when I said sovereign land is this: I was referring to the US after it had gained independence, and not the pre-US(am not sure what to call it). So my question is: Would the British Empire still have control over the founding fathers(their subjects) and their children even after the US had declared independence and the US had come into existence and the US was thus a sovereign nation at the time. In short am asking: Did the founding fathers seize to be British subjects solely because they were now US citizens?

Now when it comes to Obama, he’s dad was a British subject (different from a citizen) – this is at birth. Can the events of Britain & Kenya, 2 years after his birth regulate his US citizenship status (ie by virtue of his dad becoming a Kenyan citizen – no proof available), or 20 or so years after his birth(when Britain changed their citizenship laws). So if in his case we can allow Britain to dictate what natural born is, then that means that the same should have applied for the founding father’s children, right?

I will read your Chapter 7 and comment on it tomorrow.

In the meantime, I’ve enjoyed this discussion, and I hope we it continues in the same rational spirit – it seems to boil down to this: I belief that according the 14th amendment, anyone born on US soil with the exception of children of diplomats, is a natural-born citizen; but you believe that this is not the case. Both our definitions are to be found nowhere in the constitution – therefore leaving it to the SCOTUS to decide on it should a case be brought forward. The other alternative would be to amend the constitution and define the term natural-born. So in short I don’t believe this is a clear cut case, its very subjective and I would be wrong to say you’re wrong, and the same would apply to you claiming I am wrong. I think its just a difference in opinion. The founding fathers could have cleared this upon some 200+ years ago, but unfortunately, they didn’t! They were really smart guys, had foresight on many issues, but for this ambiguity I feel they are really to blame(leaving us to guess what they meant), just in the same way that they allowed slavery to be carried out for many years to come!

Having said that, I think resolving the ambiguities of the constitution is what really should be embarked on right now. Changing a constitution is quite a challenging aspect, and there’s really no guarantee that everyone would be happy with the outcome – what if they decided to make all US citizens equal and scrap the natural-born status in order to only have 1 type of US citizens ie a US Citizen? Having the SCOTUS decide on this matter is also not going to happen anytime soon, since a case would have to be brought forward.

In my opinion Barack Hussein Obama is as American as apple pie, was born in the US and was raised by Americans. His name is of course not the typical American name. He had minimal ties with his dad, therefore there’s no credible threat of him having foreign allegiances to other nations, other than genetic composition. Some critics, will say, the law is the law, and the US constitution needs to be followed, and I would disagree with them since I believe that the constitution has been upheld (of course based on my opinion). If the law was clear cut that both parents need to be US citizens, i rest my case, and of course he would be ineligible, but unfortunately we have here a situation subject to very differing opinions.

I understand people being disappointed with his policies, but the way around that is through elections. An attempt to de-legitimize him because of he holds genes of a Kenyan father who abandoned him when he was young will of course imply that single US moms cannot bear children who would one day become president, because “the law is the law, and there’s nothing you can do about that”. Of course I re-state once more that I don’t believe that that is the law of the land.

I have absolutely enjoyed our coversation and clarifications of one another’s opinions throughout our discourse. It is truly refreshing to have someone who believes Barack Obama is a natural born citizen come to this website and read the book and make intelligent and throught provoking comments. We actually don’t disagree on much. As you pointed out, I am of a different opinion and believe that natural born citizen as intended by the founders meant two citizens parents. But I absolutely agree with you that we do not know and only the Supreme Court can tell us. I will have no quibble with whatever definition they come to. My point of the book is that it is an important issue and must be resolved once and for all.

The remainder of your questions above are detailed in other chapters of the book. I highly encourage you to read chapters 4, 8 and 9.

Again, I very much appreciate your comments, your civility and your insights.

WE’VE MOVED!

Please visit us at our new location at: www.constitutionalgov.net

The U.S. Constitution

WE, the PEOPLE of the UNITED
STATES, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...

Closed Comments

Comments have been turned off on this site. To comment on articles please visit our new site at www.constitutionalgov.net. All of the articles from this site have been imported there.

Blogroll

Intellectual Property

Please note that all material found on this blog is the intellectual property of the blogs primary account holder. You are welcome to reproduce information of interest you find here as long as you appropriately quote your source with a link to the corresponding blog post.